19force8
For the avoidance of faith
More of one than John Mann, but then so am Ithat's great. Do you think Livingstone an asset to the labour party?
More of one than John Mann, but then so am Ithat's great. Do you think Livingstone an asset to the labour party?
If he is judged as less than an asset, should we falsely accuse him of anti-Semitism and ruin his reputaion for the rest of his life?
Is that your "for the greater good of the party" angle?
What long term drawbacks can you see in falsely accusing political enemies (or liabilities) of anti-Semitism?
Could it be counter-productive to conflate genuine holocaust deniers with people that you just want out of the way?
I started by disagreeing with the headline.
Such a good line I don't believe it's originalFair enough. You have slung your mud, so now you can sling your hook.
The problem for Livingstone is that Naz Shah held up her hands and said [to paraphrase] "sorry that was anti-semitic and unaccepteble, but I was young and angry, it won't happen again, please forgive me." So he's now caught defending her "anti-semitism" without any of her excuses. It's going to be rough.All this in the context of the Livingstone case, which last week seems to have had the goalposts moved away from his Havarra / Hitler comments to v thin Naz Shah related ones
Clearly not, unless you're claiming that both Livingstone and Greenstein are racists and anti-semites. Which I'd venture to say was an unsustainable assertion.a trope used exclusively by racists and antisemites to further their racist, antisemitic ends.
I think we were more or less in agreement. On the wisdom of the Hitler argument anyway, if not on the value of certain party members.they're both total liabilities. Insert 'almost' in front of exclusively if it makes you happy.
I think we were more or less in agreement. On the wisdom of the Hitler argument anyway, if not on the value of certain party members.
Greenstein is a nutter, and I've no interest in reading another of his rants so let's just assume he's right on the detail. So what? The problem here (and this is pointed out every time this row surfaces again) isn't that Livingstone was lying - it's that he brought Hitler to a row about antisemitism. It's that he handed Corbyn's enemies a free gift, that he keeps giving them again and again, for no good reason. And it's that the allegation he made - regardless of it's veracity - is a trope used exclusively by racists and antisemites to further their racist, antisemitic ends.
Insert 'almost' in front of exclusively if it makes you happy.
Some parts of the church are broader than others.Tis remarkable how quickly this has been dealt with compared to the Danczuk saga
Not all cartoons are "funny," some are serious and some are satirical. This falls into the latter category, though I did chuckle at the wombat earlier in the week.This is todays Steve Bell cartoon. Am i missing something, is this funny?
View attachment 103618
The whole Livingstone story is so ridiculous.